I believe in a global flood, but recently I was hit by a series of questions on another forum that I did not have answers to, so I am hoping to find some answers here. Here are some of the points that were made by one atheist:

1)It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.
2)Most sea life would not have been able to survive the flood due to mixing of salt and fresh water, changing temperatures, and light filtration.
3)Water altitude would have produced an atmosphere that was too cold and too thin for anything to survive on the ark.

1)It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.

Why would that be the case?

2)Most sea life would not have been able to survive the flood due to mixing of salt and fresh water, changing temperatures, and light filtration.

That assumes the following:a) That species can not be survive in both fresh and salty water or a mixture of it. B) That the water was everywhere mixed the samec) That eggs of sea life won't have survived for a long time, before they could have found suitable conditions again.

3)Water altitude would have produced an atmosphere that was too cold and too thin for anything to survive on the ark

Isn't that assuming that the Mt Everest was the same height as today and hence the water would have to arise above his present level?

I believe in a global flood, but recently I was hit by a series of questions on another forum that I did not have answers to, so I am hoping to find some answers here. Here are some of the points that were made by one atheist:

]1)It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.

Evolutionists cannot even show us an "observable" process as to how they came up with that number. So they just guessed a high number to make it sound impossible and to weaken your faith.

2)Most sea life would not have been able to survive the flood due to mixing of salt and fresh water,

Before the flood all waters were fresh water. This is because until it rained there was nothing making the water salty. So the flood sediments and rain erosion from the flood made the waters salty. And because it took a year for the waters to recede, the fish had a chance to adapt. And the ones that did not died. This is why there are different version of different fish (fresh water and salt water bass). Same fish one adapted to the new salt water.

changing temperatures

1) If you are referring to change in temperature waters, then you also have to consider that when that much water and sediment come up so does molten lava along with super heated water through the hydro-vents. So the water would have no problem keeping warm.2) If you are referring to the atmosphere then there is a solution for that as well.a) It only rained for 40 days so the earth was without the sun for 40 days.B) When you have that much condensing going on to make rain you also are making kinetic energy. Kinetic energy creates heat. So as long as it rained as hard as required to flood the earth the kinetic energy created from all the condensing going on in the atmosphere would keep the planet warm for 40 days. No the atheist may come up and say that there would be so much kinetic energy that it would broil the earth. The problem with that assumption is that first the kinetic energy would have to match the suns heat, then surpass that by several times to broil the earth. So no that don't work. Here's the math for it:

Averaged over an entire year and the entire Earth, the Sun deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth. This is a very large amount of heat—1.7 x 1017 watts of power that the Sun sends to the Earth/atmosphere system. For comparison, a large electric power plant would produce 100 million watts of power, or 108 watts. It would take 1.7 billion such power plants to equal the energy coming to the Earth from the Sun—roughly one for every three people on the Earth!

and light filtration.

Some of the above applies to answer this question. But again it only rained for 40 days, so light was only gone for that time period. And you have seeds from both land and ocean plants that can last that long and start new life where any old life may have died.

3)Water altitude would have produced an atmosphere that was too cold and too thin for anything to survive on the ark

The air gets thin because there is nothing above it pushing down on it. Like when you go to deep in water and the weight of the water above you can cause severe problems for you. But the water is not that way until you go deeper and deeper. It works the same way with air. So right now if you climbed Mt.Everest you would be in some very very thin air. But during the flood the whole atmosphere was pushed up over Mt. Everest so even at that level you would have all the air above you pushing down created enough pressure so the life on the ark would survive. Now you might ask, Now does air have weight? Air has mass that can be pulled upon by gravity. You have enough of the mass it creates pressure. Example: The reason we cannot exist in space without a space suit is because the vacuum would allow our bodies to basically explode. The pressure air creates at sea level due to gravity is 14.7 psi. This allows our bodies to function. This compression of air (because gas can be compressed) allows us to inhale enough oxygen to survive. Air that is not as compressed will not contain as much oxygen and therefore will cause problems.

As a side note it is believed that the air pressure before the flood was twice what it is now. Which means at sea level the pressure would be around 30 psi instead of 14,7. And because of this more oxygen was available for the old testament people which allowed them to live several hundreds of years. And today they are doing experiments on increasing atmospheric pressures and are finding that it allows the body to heal itself: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=217

How does that work? Higher atmospheric pressure squeezes the blood cells several times smaller. This allows the blood cells to get into areas of the body it cannot normally get to bring oxygen so the body can repair itself. The more compressed air also enriches each blood cell with more oxygen than what it would normally have enriching the whole body with healing oxygen to where the body can heal itself. That link I left above shows how people that medical doctors have given up on are basically healed by high atmospheric treatments. Here's one of the videos.

1) It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.

I will pull from TalkOrigins just this once to clarify the argument here (which doesn't rely on an imaginary number):

Why is inbreeding depression not a problem in most species? Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair? Link

This question assumes that the presence of genetic mutations were the same in species of the past as today. Common sense tells us this is not true since mutations are often preserved from generation to generation, and are therefore cumulative. In the Biblical model, DNA was first created in a perfected state, free of mutations. It was also created with a greater variation that was selected out over time (genetic drift). Back when the flood happened, there were far fewer mutations and far more potential for variation, therefore two of each kind would have sufficed.

I believe in a global flood, but recently I was hit by a series of questions on another forum that I did not have answers to, so I am hoping to find some answers here. Here are some of the points that were made by one atheist:

1)It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.

Did abiogenesis produce 50 members of the same beginning species? Just asking. Or did evolution take place in increments of 50?? The people saying this believe selection drove life from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR.

2)Most sea life would not have been able to survive the flood due to mixing of salt and fresh water, changing temperatures, and light filtration.

Look up halocline. Also chemocline, thermocline. Salt and fresh separate into vertical "curtains of water." Plankton will follow the desired salinity zones. There are different zones in the ocean and different biota in each zone.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Photic_zoneTypical euphotic depths vary from only a few centimetres in highly turbideutrophic lakes, to around 200 metres in the open ocean....the photic zone is where almost all of the primary productivity occurs, the depth of the photic zone is generally proportional to the level of primary productivity that occurs in that area of the ocean. About 90% of all marine life lives in the photic zone.

During the flood, in the open ocean we can have a zone of 650 feet which is conducive to photosynthesis, and at the same time would experience salt fingering (halocline). http://en.wikipedia..../Salt_fingering

I think there should be room for a few survivors, especially for people who are so dedicated to the theme of natural selection.

3)Water altitude would have produced an atmosphere that was too cold and too thin for anything to survive on the ark.

And I know people who are supposed to be dead from cancer, that are alive. Honestly, are we going to allow ANY chance that God did ANYTHING in this? I don't feel that any natural circumstance could limit God's ability to make the ark a success.

But on the natural side of things, the reason high altitudes are colder is that the air is much thinner, and it is further from the surface. Kind of like the closer you put your finger to a lit match, the warmer it feels. But the heat dissipates quickly in the upper atmosphere. HOWEVER, the air on the floodwater's surface would have been normal atmospheric pressure, we assume. It basically displaced the air--that is, there was no air underneath (in terms of atmosphere) the surface, so the water was, at that time, the surface of the earth, with normal pressure. Because the ark was on the surface, it was also close in proximity with the surface heat. Can I say "nice try, but duh?"

Did abiogenesis produce 50 members of the same beginning species? Just asking. Or did evolution take place in increments of 50?? The people saying this believe selection drove life from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR.....

That was exactly my thought as well, when someone brought up a similar argument. I actually pointed out to him that evolution has also to start with a new pair of animals of the new species. His reply was that evolution takes place in populations, hence a number of pairs. At first it seems to be convincing, but just bear in mind two things.a) How can a 50+ population turn into a completely new species Wouldn't that conserve the type of species? Even, if you broaden the population above one pair, you still would have a accumulation of defects. In fact weeding out would be more difficult, because defects can easier hide in the population.

Because the Epic written in Akkadian predates the Old Testament written in Hebrew, “The most widely accepted explanation today is the second, namely, that the biblical account is based on Babylonian material.”2 This theory poses an awkward problem for Christians. While the fact that there are flood legends like the Genesis Flood account in most cultures around the world is used to testify to the reliability of the Bible,3 the Gilgamesh Epic is used to deny the authority of the Bible because of its predating.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/csgeg/introduction

Secondly in Genesis 7:20 it says the water rose 15 cubits (22feet) hardly high enough to cover the highest mountian peak. Now if the Bible myth is correct and I am assuming for all intents and purposes that there were no eyewitness accounts to this global flood except what is written in the Bible?

If there are so many "flood stories", wouldn't it make more sense that there actually WAS a flood? That chart tells us that the different cultures didn't agree on the fine details of the story, but they all confirm that a global flood happened. After the flood, the tower of babel event lead to the scattering of people around the globe, so what about this doesn't make sense or is inconsistent?

If there are so many "flood stories", wouldn't it make more sense that there actually WAS a flood? That chart tells us that the different cultures didn't agree on the fine details of the story, but they all confirm that a global flood happened. After the flood, the tower of babel event lead to the scattering of people around the globe, so what about this doesn't make sense or is inconsistent?

Most of them do indeed agree on critical details. So it's plausible to assume that they are traditions that can be followed back to a single event. And actually there is even more. I recall reading a document that actually compared the different creation+flood traditions.

Fossils are a great clue to point to catastrophe, but it's the evidence within those fossils that put the catastrophe within in the biblical timeline. Proteins, soft tissue, carbon 14, even DNA is an empirical measure that puts these fossils in a limited time frame.

Secondly in Genesis 7:20 it says the water rose 15 cubits (22feet) hardly high enough to cover the highest mountian peak. Now if the Bible myth is correct and I am assuming for all intents and purposes that there were no eyewitness accounts to this global flood except what is written in the Bible?

It helps to quote the context:

Gen 719And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Prevailing 15 cubits above the highest mountain top is enought to cover any mountain peak. Guess there is a reason why the skeptic didn't include that argument:http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/7.htmlThey just use an anachronism (mt Everest).http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

Before the flood all waters were fresh water. This is because until it rained there was nothing making the water salty. So the flood sediments and rain erosion from the flood made the waters salty. And because it took a year for the waters to recede, the fish had a chance to adapt. And the ones that did not died. This is why there are different version of different fish (fresh water and salt water bass). Same fish one adapted to the new salt water.

While I can not speak to the flood sediments I can say the rain erosion does not make water salty. As evidence are all the fresh water lakes that would be salty not fresh if rain erosion was responsible for making the oceans salty.

When you have that much condensing going on to make rain you also are making kinetic energy. Kinetic energy creates heat. So as long as it rained as hard as required to flood the earth the kinetic energy created from all the condensing going on in the atmosphere would keep the planet warm for 40 days. No the atheist may come up and say that there would be so much kinetic energy that it would broil the earth. The problem with that assumption is that first the kinetic energy would have to match the suns heat, then surpass that by several times to broil the earth. So no that don't work. Here's the math for it:

Actually the opposite occurs as evidenced in torrential downpours. The air temperature actually drops. If you want a better answer, sea level pressure and temperature would remain the same for the most part regardless of height because it would still be sea level. It is after the flood waters recede with the ark sitting on top of Mt Ararat that they would expierence reduced atmospheric pressure and dangerous cold.

Some of the above applies to answer this question. But again it only rained for 40 days, so light was only gone for that time period. And you have seeds from both land and ocean plants that can last that long and start new life where any old life may have died.

Quite true except for those plants that do not reproduce by seed but by a portion of themselves, none of which would have been available after the flood.

If there are so many "flood stories", wouldn't it make more sense that there actually WAS a flood? That chart tells us that the different cultures didn't agree on the fine details of the story, but they all confirm that a global flood happened. After the flood, the tower of babel event lead to the scattering of people around the globe, so what about this doesn't make sense or is inconsistent?

Actually they don't all confirm a global flood. If you read each story concentrating on how they describe their flood you do see some that describe a global flood while others describe a single tribe, single valley and even a single island affected. Still others describe a flood of beer or a flood that doesn't quite reach the tops of the trees. If you read them as I described you find only about 13% of the more than 260 flood stories describe a world wide flood and they are scattered around Europe, Asia. The Middle East and Africa and can be for the most part accounted for by word of mouth tales told by travelers.

Lets do the Mt Everest/Mt Ararat comparison. If the waters prevailed over Mt Everest then the Ark would never have come to rest on Mt Ararat due to the fact that Mt Everest is 13,000 feet higher than Mt Ararat. I am aware of the belief that the mountains were lower in the past than today. If we keep Mt Ararat at it's present height but lower Mt Everest we find at the generally accepted change of 6 inches a year that Mt Everest would be 3000 ft lower in 6000 years and 5000 ft lower in 10000 years, not enough to make it possible for the ark to come to rest on Ararat. Even if we up the change to 1 foot a year we have 6000 or 12000 ft reductions and still not enough. No the only way for the ark to have come to rest on Ararat is for the waters to have been just above Ararat and that means Mt Everest was never covered by the flood.

Actually they don't all confirm a global flood. If you read each story concentrating on how they describe their flood you do see some that describe a global flood while others describe a single tribe, single valley and even a single island affected. Still others describe a flood of beer or a flood that doesn't quite reach the tops of the trees. If you read them as I described you find only about 13% of the more than 260 flood stories describe a world wide flood and they are scattered around Europe, Asia. The Middle East and Africa and can be for the most part accounted for by word of mouth tales told by travelers.

If there were no flood legends, then you would be suspicious of this as well, no doubt. We all know the telephone game as an example of how verbal messages can be distorted over a short period of time, so it would not be unlikely to hear a high level of variation between these stories. Besides, we are not asserting that this was the only flood that ever happened in earth's history, so it could be that some of these legends were based on local floods, or pulled from the Biblical account and shrank to a smaller scale.

Your skepticism speaks to your distrust in the historical authority of the Bible. You can find arguments both for and against the divine authority of the Bible depending on what you are looking for. I can tell you that the oral tradition of the Jewish people was highly important to them. Many Jews dedicated their lives to memorizing histories word for word. They did not just speak loose formulaic derivations of a central story lines as other cultures did. This is why I and other Christians and Jews trust the Bible account over other accounts. Besides that, there have been civilizations that have been unearthed as described in the Bible, but recorded nowhere else. They were long though to be fake, because after all "the Bible is full of myths".

If there were no flood legends, then you would be suspicious of this as well, no doubt. We all know the telephone game as an example of how verbal messages can be distorted over a short period of time, so it would not be unlikely to hear a high level of variation between these stories. Besides, we are not asserting that this was the only flood that ever happened in earth's history, so it could be that some of these legends were based on local floods, or pulled from the Biblical account and shrank to a smaller scale.

Your skepticism speaks to your distrust in the historical authority of the Bible. You can find arguments both for and against the divine authority of the Bible depending on what you are looking for. I can tell you that the oral tradition of the Jewish people was highly important to them. Many Jews dedicated their lives to memorizing scriptures word for word. They did not just speak loose formulaic derivations of a central story lines as other cultures did. This is why I and other Christians and Jews trust the Bible account over other accounts. Besides that, there have been civilizations that have been unearthed as described in the Bible, but recorded nowhere else. They were long though to be fake, because after all "the Bible is full of myths".

It really has nothing to do with distrust or the phone game but with reading an account concentrating on how the flood is described and applying some logic and common sense. Can you truly say a flood of beer or fire is just a change in the telling or can you admit that not all flood stories are descriptions of the one in the bible?

You trust the bible account and have used the phone game as an indicator of changes in the flood accounts. Well then lets apply that concept to the biblical account itself. The Bible account is not the oldest. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older and the epic of Atrahasis older still. Since the two Epics were written before the Bible then they would be considered the older accounts that the Bible is based on. If we look at them, the Epic of Atrahasis describes a river flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh, a very close copy of Atrahasis has had some wording changed and makes the river flood into a global flood. Then we have the Bible, farther removed from the original which continues the global flood theme.

In applying your concept of the phone game where each telling adds, removes or changes something, even a minor item, we must accept that the oldest account, the one closest to the actual event would be the most correct. Comparing Atrahasis with the Bible we can see how the concepts of the phone game came into play and why the Biblical account is different from the earliest Atrahasis account.